Canada closes embassy in Iran, expels Iranian diplomats

page: 5
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Another poster said the same thing, I don't remember his/her name and I apologize for that.

The only reason for this action is to limit the collateral damage to your country. You are with us or you aren't. Historically Canada has been a peaceful country, in order to align these values Canada needs to take the most peaceful existence. Being America's little brother seems to fit that bill.

It's like initiation.

My opinion? Just one step closer to the American Union.




posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by olliemc84
 


A reactor running at double capacity does not mean that a nuclear weapon is being produced. What it means is that the nuclear fuel is being consumed at double the speed to meet demand, and some very clever Iranian chaps are ensuring as much as possible that this state of affairs does not result in catastrophy by carefully monitoring coolant levels, power output, and system requirements, not to mention keeping up with a double time checklist of repair and restoration on parts which will require close observation to keep the reactor running safely.

Honestly, where do people get these bizzare ideas about how nukes are created?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   
In the direct aftermath of 911, I vividly remember the 'tut-tutting' from Canadians on the American government's turn for the worse, and touting their country as a safe refuge.

I think its safe to say that those voices are no longer heard as Canadians have been dragged right into the middle of the globalist agenda.

So, what are you going to do about Harper? His intentions were clear as glass from Day 1.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
I remember a time when Canada would only get invovled as peacekeepers.
I remember a time when US businessmen traveling abroad would take courses on how to act "Canadian" so to avoid trouble, everyone loved Canadians.

I remember when Chritchen told GW to jump in the lake, over the Iraq Lies.

Then the Lapdog Harper came along.......

Now Canada is just another Butt-Hole Bully Country.


Seems like your memory needs a refresh.

Harper didn't gut Canada's peacekeeping reputation. Jean Chretien did - with Bosnia, in 1995. After that, Canada was pretty much out of the peacekeeping game entirely. There has not been a significant contribution to a peacekeeping mission since.

I suppose you could make the case that it started under Mulroney with the Gulf War contribution, if you really want to draw party lines, but the point is that Harper isn't the one to blame for Canada blowing its role as a well respected, even handed, peacekeeping nation. It's been nearly 20 years since anyone with more influence than a Canadian beer commercial thought so.

As far as Chretien telling Bush to jump in the lake - that's not how it happened either. Canada was overextended by a long shot with two missions: Afghanistan and the Bosnia mission, and public opposition was very heavily against the war (i was at a big protest in Montreal with something like 250,000 other people). Chretien played to that very well. That was the public face of the opposition.

but then...

Chretien authorized three ships for the Persian gulf, under the guise of NATO support. Pilots flew missions based on NORAD support. Officers (50 or 60, IIRC) served on the ground under CAN-US exchange programs. All in all, Canada's contribution to the Iraq war between March of 03 and 2005, in terms of personnel and logistics, was a properly Canadian 4th place - just short of the medal podium.

All Harper has done is continue the swing to geopolitical irrelevance that was set in motion years and years ago. Another nail in the coffin of a reputation that has only existed in the minds of Canadians for a generation.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by fenceSitter
 


Of course they are building a nuke, it's a bargaining chip, same with Pakistan, same with India. Many things change when assured destruction on both sides is inevitable if war were to break out.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by fenceSitter
 





but I haven't seen any solid proof that they are building a nuclear weapon


ring any bells!!





posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by NoJoker13
 


Why would you say that they are building a nuke without firm evidence to support your hypothesis? There is no information to base such an assumption on, other than the fact that no one likes the leadership of Iran, no one likes the fact that the place is run by zealots, and no one likes the fact that with all that aside, no one has any business meddling in thier affairs without hard evidence to lead them to do so.

The leadership of the nation are by no means perfect, but until we can ascertain for a solid certainty that there are nuclear weapons being produced, we have no right to prevent thier nuclear program from continuing, because they have a right to provide power for thier citizens, and a responsibility to do so as well. With global oil and gas prices so high as they were when the nuclear power option was being pushed through there, it is little wonder they decided to take that route, and good luck to them. Dont get me wrong, if there is hard evidence that they are producing nuclear weapons, then the entire nation ought to be turned to smoking glass at the nearest oppertunity, but unless or until that happens, there should be no harrassment of this nation on this subject.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 


The voice of reason is refreshing to hear.


Canada has never shied away from military expeditions. It's history of campaigns is long and reaching back to the founding as a country. Throughout all of those conflicts, the trend of 'peacekeeping' has held only a recent and minor role.

The reason behind the current understanding that Canada has a weak and ineffectual military was Bill C-90, the Unification Act:


Bill C-90 "An Act to Amend the National Defence Act" was enacted on 1 August 1964 and the integrated headquarters structure under a CDS came into being.

www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org...


This removed the three-tiered structure of command and replaced it with what was intended to be a streamlined version, disposing of not only what was considered a redundant officer class, many of whom were now out of a job, but killing what can only be described as the 'historical honours' placed on each facet of those disbanded forces. I was in an artilliery unit at the time this happened and can vouch for the overall feeling of disenfranchisement that was felt by everyone, no matter what their rank.

This was the primary cause of the recent destruction of Canada's military.

Only recently have those distinctions been reversed by The Harper Government, a political party I often abhor for their policies, but not in this case. It is one of the few good changes they've made.

Army, Navy and Air Force for the win.
edit on 8/9/12 by masqua because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ARNOMANNN
I think everyone here is missing one peculiar thing about this and that is the abrupt timing of this move.

...

Does this mean something is on the horizon??


Even more strange,

Prince Harry deployed to Afghanistan







Prince Harry has been deployed to Afghanistan for four months, the Ministry of Defence says.

The prince, an Apache helicopter pilot, arrived on Thursday night at the main British base, Camp Bastion in Helmand.

The 27-year-old, who is third in line to the throne, will take part in combat missions against the Taliban.

It is his second Afghanistan deployment - he spent 10 weeks in Helmand province in 2007-08 but was pulled out after media reported his secret deployment.



SOURCE: www.bbc.co.uk...

Now why would the Brits "announce" that Harry is in Afghanistan?

The last time they sneaked Harry into the battlefield, and when the press got wind of it and reported it in the newspapers, there was a rush to get Harry out of there, lest he became a target. And he wasn't even "exposed" when he was there, i.e. he was just a field person.

But, flying a helicopter makes you a highly visible target. Why on earth would the British announce to the world that this "high value asset" was now in the battlefield flying a "highly visible and slow moving target".

Does that make sense to anybody?

Are the Brits just upset with Harry, and are setting him up for elimination, like his mom Lady Diana?

In the old TV series Hogan's Heros, a recurring joke was the German army sending someone to the Russian front whenever they misbehaved.

Is Harry being sent to the war front for his recent misbehavior? If he proves himself worthy, he comes back with honor. And if he doesn't he falls on the battlefield like his mom. Tough judgment. Is this what it is?

Nah.

I think there's another explanation for the recent events.

Harry knew the war in Iran/Syria was coming, and he was to be deployed there, so the army let him loose to frolic a little with the ladies to taste the pleasures of life before putting his life at risk.So, Harry's behavior was natural, a man expecting to see war soon, decides to throw all caution to the wind and have a little last minute fun.

Harry's naked photos are then evidence that war is coming soon. Harry knows that nothing will matter because the war will take up the headlines and whatever he does now is irrelevant.

Then the Brits announcing that Harry is going to Afghanistan, is again proof that war is coming in Iran/Syria, because Harry obviously can't be going to Afghanistan if they are willing to tell us that. So, Harry must be going to the Gulf instead, and Afghanistan is just the misdirection. In war, truth is the first casualty. They just need to explain why Harry will be missing from the local scene in Britain for 4 months. Well, that's winter, that's the precise time convenient for war, because it's cool then. So, we conclude war is coming this winter.

This suggests Obama will lose the elections, and Romney will win. Because the Republicans are the war mongers, not the Democrats. So, even though it appears that Obama will win right now, something will happen between now and the elections to put Romney ahead. Romney has already announced his promise to increase military spending, although he hasn't given any details on what or why such additional expenditure is needed.

Then, from observing the recent authoritarian style take over of the Romney camp in the RNC, with scripted votes, and exclusion of all alternate voices, kidnapping people and driving them around in a bus so they couldn't appear at the RNC to voice opposition, etc..all points to the hidden hand operating behind the scenes making things happen according to a predetermined plan, just like the George Bush Jr. election events.

War mongering Republicans are preparing to enter the White House once again to start yet another war to feed their friends in the military industrial complex, and give the U.S. economy a boost with a lot of off-budget military emergency spending, while promising to cut taxes and cut on-budget spending.

History repeats, and repeats, and repeats, until it just becomes completely predictable.


Oh, I forgot, the recent unusual shooting of middle eastern origin family driving a British car in France probably has something to do with all this too. Maybe the driver of the car was smuggling sensitive photos of British military preparations taken from his firm's aerial photography collection, and selling this stuff to some Iranian contact whom he was meeting in France. The British secret service then had to eliminate the whole group to protect knowledge of the war plan. Something like that...all things are connected...we only have to find the threads.










edit on 8-9-2012 by GreatOwl because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-9-2012 by GreatOwl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by GreatOwl
 


In an Apache heli, Harry can kill anything that looks like a threat before he has even made a visual identification of the target. Anything that could pose a threat to the Prince would be churned meat before having a chance to fire upon the craft. The statistics speak for themselves, since the RAF have never lost one in battle. He is in more danger of an engineering failiure than an enemy action in that thing. Its hell on rotors!



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Agreed, no diplomacy. The conservative government has poor skills concerning diplomacy as we can see. They just throw people out. Only in certain circumstances is this reasonable (a country embarking on deplorable actions). This merely appears to be the conservative government bowing down to Israel influence.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
The real government in Canada is the CGC. Remember when George Galloway was invited to Canada on a speaking engagement at one of the Universities. He was barred from entry. Again, the Zionists are at work trying to villify muslim nations in Western eyes. It is another propaganda show to portray all middle east nations as evil and particularly Iran. Iran for hundreds of years has lived peacefully with it's neighbours. It is not an imperial or expansionist power. The Zionists are agressively promoting territorial expansion. They have locked in the Palestinians, set up illegal settlements that are condemned by the international community and also by the UN.They have sanctioned by the UN more than any other nation as well as contemputously violating those sanctions.
Iran has complied with requests for inspections of nuclear sites and has signed onto proliferation treaties. There is only one middle east country that cannot say this yet it is the good guy. The closure of the embassy is all about power politics. Just as in the US Israel and the 1% run Canada. Once again the muslims are portrayed as the evil doers. It is hard to believe that people still buy into this myth.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by GreatOwl
 


In an Apache heli, Harry can kill anything that looks like a threat before he has even made a visual identification of the target. Anything that could pose a threat to the Prince would be churned meat before having a chance to fire upon the craft. The statistics speak for themselves, since the RAF have never lost one in battle. He is in more danger of an engineering failiure than an enemy action in that thing. Its hell on rotors!


A helicopter is the easiest target for ground missiles. Shoulder fired rockets. Put a circle of men in 360 degree pattern each with a shoulder fired rocket aimed at the target, and tell me how that Apache will respond to the simultaneous firing of ground rockets from all directions. You have to assume that the enemy will approach in a particular linear way, for the Apache to have the advantage. You're dealing with an enemy that is willing to commit suicide to achieve it's objective, and relying on a machine to identify and respond to that enemy in time, to keep you alive. The slightest mechanical failure or computer timing error and you're a sitting duck for a lucky shot.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Yeah, when I consider "where in the world" I should go now that the US seems destined to degenerate into a Fascist police state with pretend elections -- I've had to rule out Canada because they've got a proto-neocon.

If there is a conflict with Iran -- it will get JUSTIFIED, but it's all over for any hope to move us off the path of a dying empire using war for resources to keep itself afloat.

Of course, the NEW feature of modern society, is that now war profiteers can safely be a few holding companies away from the cost/benefits of people killing each other. We won't know who to blame -- but we will hear their well paid mouthpieces.

>> In America, telling the truth requires an immediate apology. Is it that way now in Canada? Did Blair get cosmetic surgery and take over their leadership as errand boy for USA/Israel?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
its good to know that Iran will no longer have a lawful presence on the North American continent. I've had a warm and fuzzy feeling since first reading this article.

Iran has done all of this to itself and has no one to blame for its steadily increasing isolation. Sure...they can attract junior delegations from the worlds smallest nations but things are not getting better for them. iran needs to scale down their ultimate ambitions of global domination and be content with continuing to exist.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

>> In America, telling the truth requires an immediate apology. Is it that way now in Canada?


Canada is very much like the United States with some notable exceptions. The most important thing we have going for us, as sane people, is that we aren't pledging allegiance to the flag from the moment we start school. That sort of "Hitler youth" style indoctrination doesn't really go on here.

The theocratic aspects of American life are mostly absent also, unless one is a Jehovah's Witness or the like. There are few of the perversions of religion that you find in places like the US or Iran, none of the "Jesus is my wingman.", "Kill a commie for Christ.", or "The Lord guided the ball into the end zone.", style "religious" lunacy.

But most Canadians are dedicated consumers who don't care about issues and who don't want their boats rocked by unpleasant facts. There are some exceptions though. A young woman I was talking to a couple of weeks ago wanted to know all about 9/11 truth and seemed quite excited that anything like that had actually happened. She wanted information.

Maybe all the time spent on ATS is not wasted.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by fenceSitter
 


the reason given was a load of crappity crap.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I have NO doubt in my mind that Iran wants nuclear energy and maybe one day develop nuclear weapon technology but the issue is that I simply don't care. Let them have whatever form of energy they desire. Why must we (the US) punish one country for wanting something we have? Oh yeah, because Iran wants to export oil for Euro and since we have a monopoly on the oil industry, we can't let that happen.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I see the closing of the embassy as a prelude to hostilities.

Regardless of the current US stance, and perhaps in defiance of it, the Harper Government has seemed intent on cosying up to the Israelis. What is behind that is beyond me, but they must be aware of something about to come down the tube. Also, if Obama loses the election, things will change there in regards to how the West in total is going to handle Iran.

I wouldn't doubt the recent 'intelligence trading' treaty with NK has something to do with the Canadian move.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
I see the closing of the embassy as a prelude to hostilities.

Regardless of the current US stance, and perhaps in defiance of it, the Harper Government has seemed intent on cosying up to the Israelis. What is behind that is beyond me, but they must be aware of something about to come down the tube. Also, if Obama loses the election, things will change there in regards to how the West in total is going to handle Iran.

I wouldn't doubt the recent 'intelligence trading' treaty with NK has something to do with the Canadian move.


I predict Obama will use military action when it comes to Iran but it's also strongly possible that he won't...however, if Romney does somehow win in November, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that a war is 100% likely.





new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join